Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 279, 337, 304A

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 279---Rash or negligent driving-Degree of proof for establishing criminal liability resulting from negligence or rashness-Has to be very strict. For establishing criminal liability resulting from negligence or rashness, the degree of proof that would be required has to be very strict. Miller v. Minister of Pensions (1947) 2 K B 373; Salmond on Jurisprudence, 12th Edn., p. 394; Woolmington v. The Director of Public Prosecutions 1935 L R 462 and Charlesworth on Negli gence, 4th Edn., p. 10 rel, (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 279, 337 & 304-A ---Death causing by rash and negligent driving---Circumstantial evidence---Car dashing against wall, causing it to collapse, thereby killing one child and injuring another-Ti-rod of vehicle found broken and no evidence indicative of cause of such breaking ----Neither Motor Vehicles Inspector nor any other prosecution witness examined to prove by direct or presumptive evidence as to when ti- rod was broken---Probability of vehicle `having dashed against wall on account of sudden breaking of ti-rod and consequential loss of control by driver---Cannot, in circumstances, be eliminated ---Prosecution case, held, doubtful-Accused acquitted. Ordinarily if it is established that the impact was a result of negligence or the impact was of a nature which can by itself lead to an Inference of negligence it would not be necessary to obtain direct proof of circumstances out of which negligence could be spelt out. The vehicle had swerved from the road and dashed against a wall, it may by itself furnish satisfactory proof of negligence. However, there is another difficulty that the ti-rod of the vehicle was found to be broken and there is no evidence whatsoever as to what was the cause of the breaking of the ti-rod. The probability of the vehicle having dashed against the wall on account of sudden breaking of the ti-rod and consequent loss of control of the vehicle by the driver cannot be eliminated. The Motor Vehicle Inspector has not stated in his evidence as to when had the ti-rod broken nor has any witness been examined to prove this fact by direct or presumptive evidence. Book on Evidence by…